Jaibir Singh And Others vs Gram Panchayat on 2 September, 2009

RSA No.1250 of 2008 (O&M)                                                    1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

                               R.S.A. No. 1250 of 2008 (O&M)
                               Date of Decision: September 02, 2009




Jaibir Singh and others                            ...........Appellants

                              Versus



Gram Panchayat,Badhana and others                   ..........Respondents



Coram:       Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina

Present: Mr.Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for the appellants.


                              **

Sabina, J.

Plaintiffs filed a suit under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of

Civil Procedure for declaration under Section 45 of Punjab Land Revenue

Act and for permanent injunction as a consequential relief. The said suit of

the plaintiffs was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Jind vide judgment and decree dated 26.9.2005. Aggrieved by the same,

plaintiffs filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional

District Judge Jind vide judgment and decree dated 18.12.2007 Hence, the

present appeal by the plaintiffs.

The case of the parties, as noticed by the learned Additional

District Judge, in paras 3 and 4 of its judgment reads as under:-

” 3. Briefly stated facts of the suit are that the land comprising in

Khasra numbers 762, 763, 764, 766, 1300 to 1305, 1299, 1306,

1494, 1495, 1307 to 1311, 1312 min, 1313 min, 1314 min, 1478,
RSA No.1250 of 2008 (O&M) 2

1484 to 1488 was agricultural land under the cultivation of the

proprietors of the village Badhana according to their respective

shares and in the year 1960-61 consolidation proceedings took

place then a dispute arose between the proprietors regarding

distribution of their land mentioned in Para no.2 of the plaint.

The matter was agitated before the Director Consolidation,

Haryana in year 1973 who ordered on 23.4.1976 that pre-

consolidated land shall be distributed pro-rata amongst the

proprietors as per their shares and further it was also ordered that

suit land shall be allotted in one block and that would be treated

as extra quarrah as per scheme framed by the consolidation

department. While at the time of implementing the order dated

23.4.1976 mutation No.823 was sanctioned and at that time

plaintiffs were told by the circle revenue officer that mutation had

been sanctioned as pro-rata in their names on 30.4.1979 and

possession was also delivered to them in compliance of the order

dated 23.4.1976 by the Director of Consolidation. Thus, during

the consolidation the land measuring 1217 kanals 15 marlas was

allotted against the old khasra numbers as described in para No.2

of the plaint. But their new numbers were not mentioned in the

order dated 23.4.1976. Though Director Consolidation ordered

for distribution of the land measuring 1217 kanals 15 marlas

amongst the proprietors. Thus, all the plaintiffs are in cultivating

possession of the disputed land since the time of the allotment but

in year 1994-95 in the column of ownership the name of the Gram

Panchayat has been mentioned as owner. Though Gram
RSA No.1250 of 2008 (O&M) 3

Panchayat has no concern with the suit land. Thus, as per the

orders of the consolidation dated 23.4.1976 plaintiffs are owners

in possession of the suit land and are entitled for making

correction in the revenue records in their names but defendants on

the basis of the wrong entries in the revenue records are adamant

to interfere in peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and they are

also adamant to dispossess the plaintiffs forcibly from the suit

land for which defendants have no right to do so. Thus, plaintiffs

have prayed for decree of declaration to the effect that entries

made in the revenue records showing the defendant no.1 as owner

of the suit land are illegal and void. The plaintiffs being owner in

possession of the suit land are entitled to make the entries

corrected in their names and further defendants be restrained from

disposes the plaintiffs from the suit land forcibly.

4. Defendants have contested their case by filing their respective

written statements. Their stand is that there is a question of

vesting or non-vesting of the property to the Gram Panchayat so

civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit. Even

plaintiffs have not served with the legal notice under Section 205

of the Gram Panchayat Act and Section 80 of the CPC upon the

defendants before filing the suit so their suit is bad for want of

notice. Even suit of the plaintiff is hopelessly time barred and the

disputed land is vested in the Gram Panchayat and the mutation

no.823 was sanctioned on the basis of the orders of the Director of

Consolidation dated 23.4.1976. The plaintiffs have challenged

the validity of the mutation after lapse of more than 30 years. So,
RSA No.1250 of 2008 (O&M) 4

their suit is time barred and not maintainable. They further

alleged that except 28 kanals of land entire suit land had been

given to the Forest department for plantation but plaintiffs had not

impleaded some persons namely, Kapoora and Randhir Singh who

were also in possession of the some portion of the land. Plaintiffs

have no common interest in the suit land rather they are interested

to make encroachment in the suit land for which they have no

right. Even the plaint is vague and it has not disclosed the cause

of action between the parties. In fact, the mutation was

sanctioned on the basis of the order dated 23.4.1976. There were

Kiker trees in the suit land and the gram panchayat has auctioned

the same. Even Jaibir and Leela Singh were members of the

panchayat who participated in auction proceedings. So they are

estopped by filing the suit on their act and conduct. Even Satbir,

Phool Singh also took part in the auction proceedings. Thus, the

suit land is under the control and supervision of the Gram

Panchayat, as owner and plaintiffs and other proprietors of the

village have no concern with the same. In this way, defendants

have controverted the stand of the plaintiffs and have requested

for dismissal of the suit. Thus, notice of the suit was served upon

the defendants who appeared and filed their written statements

and controverted the stand of the plaintiffs and requested for

dismissal of the suit of the plaintiffs.”

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were

framed by the trial Court:-

“1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the
RSA No.1250 of 2008 (O&M) 5

property in dispute?OPP

2. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent

injunction?OPP

3. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 205 of

Gram Panchayat Act?OPD

4. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80

CPC?OPD

5. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action and locus

standi to file the present suit?OPP

6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD

7. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary

parties?OPD

8. Whether the suit has not properly valued for the purpose of

court fee and jurisdiction?OPD

9. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean

hands and have concealed the material facts from the court.

10. Relief”

After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of

the opinion that this appeal is devoid of any merit.

Admittedly, plaintiffs are the resident and proprietors of

village Badhana. It has been observed by the learned Additional District

Judge in its judgment that PW2 Arjan, PW3 Pirthi and PW4 Nihala in their

examination-in-chief, alleged that they were owners in possession of the

suit land being proprietors of the village. However, in their cross-

examination, they admitted that since the year 1984, the Gram Panchayat

was leasing out the suit land in auction for cultivation. Some of the land
RSA No.1250 of 2008 (O&M) 6

had also been leased out to the Forest Department for plantation. It has

been further observed by the learned Additional District Judge in its

judgment, after appreciating the evidence on record, that the Gram

Panchayat was owner in possession of the suit land and it was not possible

to ascertain which of the land was under cultivation of the plaintiffs.

During consolidation, new khasra numbers had been allotted and Gram

Panchayat was recorded as owner of the new khasra numbers. The land,

which was lying vacant and un-utilized, belonging to the proprietors of the

village, could be got properly decided by approaching the revenue court.

During consolidation, the land had been left for common purposes and,thus,

it fell within the definition of shamlat deh in terms of the Punjab Village

Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The fact as to whether the land

left for common purposes had, in fact, been used for common purposes or

not could be got resolved by the plaintiffs from the revenue Court. The land

was under the control and supervision of Gram Panchayat. It has also been

clarified by the learned Additional District Judge that in case the plaintiffs

have any grouse then they could agitate the matter before the revenue Court,

keeping in view the order of consolidation department dated 23.4.1976. But

they could not get any relief from the Civil Court. Hence, no ground for

interference is made out.

No substantial question of law arises in this regular second

appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this

appeal is dismissed.

( Sabina )
Judge
September 02, 2009
arya